


r *i,a^tsL 





Biology and Industry 



By 



MAYNARD M. METCALF 



THE ORCHARD LABORATORY 

OBERLIN, OHIO 

OCT. 1921 









v# 






Biology and Industry 

By Maynaed M. Metcalf 
(Bead before the Cleveland Council of Sociology, Jan. 31, 1921) 

Knickerbocker, in writing his famous History of New York, be- 
gan with a discussion of the universe, of which, of course, New York 
is a major portion, and then proceeded to a disquisition upon uni- 
verses in general. Perhaps, before coming to our main theme we may 
spend a few minutes discussing certain universals which have a bear- 
ing upon our theme. 

Thinking may be accurate within the field of the data and the 
processes it sets itself to consider, and yet may be inadequate 
thinking, and its inadequacy may be due to one or more of several 
things, some of which are rather prone to characterize the thinking 
of even the best of us human folk and to vitiate our conclusions, 
even though our argument, so far as it goes, may be sound. Two of 
these things that so customarily cause our thinking and our con- 
clusions to be untrustworthy, we might term narrowness and shal- 
lowness, but let us not put too much of disrespect into these terms. 
Narrow thinking or shallow thinking may be accurate so far as 
concerns the data considered and may be very imposing in its 
marshalling of these data. As hypothetical thinking it is of great 
value, the hypothesis being that the data used are the only data 
germane to the discussion in hand. Such reasoning, if sound, says 
— "If the data we are considering are all that should be taken into 
account in this matter (whatever it may be), then the following con- 
clusions seem to be indicated." Such thinking is of great value, but 
it needs always to be tested to see if its major premise is true, to be 
sure that we have included in our view all the phenomena and facts 
which are germane to the matter under consideration. 

Probably the qualities of conservatism and prejudice in human- 
kind are chiefly responsible, along with ignorance, for our proneness 
to narrow thinking. President Eliot once said, in substance, "The 
conservative is a wholly useless animal." Eliot himself is gloriously 
free in his thinking and I have great respect for him and his dicta,' 
yet, while recognizing the truth underlying his statement quoted, I 
cannot but dissent from it to a degree at least. It is true that the 



yeast in human life and human society is free thinking, untrammelled 
thinking, impersonal thinking, and while it is true that all human 
progress has been due to such thinking activated by the energy of 
men devoted to living and getting others to live the conclusions 
reached by such free thinking, still the conservative has played his 
part, though, of course, in a wholly negative way. 

Let an ordinary motor boat illustrate the point. Generated and 
guided energy could not push the boat along its chosen course if it 
were not for the resistance of the water to the screw and the rudder. 
Conservatism makes something to overcome. A progressive, a re- 
former, has reason to be discouraged when others too readily agree 
with him. He must feel as I imagine a motor boat might feel when 
its screw kicks out into the air and races, finding nothing to bite 
upon and push against. Of course, faith in one's thinking is the 
positive element which furnishes the motive power, but opposition 
is needed to make the faith prove itself. Opposition is productive 
of thoughtful thoroughness in the reformer. The function of the 
conservative, while negative and inglorious, is yet essential. 

"One of the chief services conservatism renders to human society 
lies in the difficulty which it presents to the entrance and adoption of 
new and strange conceptions or lines of conduct. The new, whether 
new in idea or merely new in emphasis, must fight and must find 
itself and prove itself in this initial struggle, before it can prevail. 
This struggle for existence among social ideas is the scientific experi- 
mental laboratory for society, and the whole social experimental 
method is dependent upon the natural human conservatism which 
causes and makes intense this struggle through which social ideas 
must pass to be accepted/'* 

Controlled movement is secured anywhere in nature only through 
resistence. The contraction of the biceps muscle must be opposed by 
the resistence of the triceps, if we are to make a controlled and direc- 
ted movement of the arm rather than a flop. You can't safely guide a 
horse with one rein. You need the two opposed reins to guide him 
along the desired course. Human society is regulated by opposed 
tendencies and forces just as truly as is muscular movement or the 

(*) From Metcalf, The Scientific Spirit, Science, N. S., vol. 
XLIX, No. 1276, pp. 551-558, June 13, 1919. 



horse's course. Socialism must balance and be balanced by individ- 
ualism. Radicalism must oppose and be resisted by conservatism. 
Faith must meet and be made trustworthy by doubt. In every case 
we need the opposed ideas and tendencies if we are to have controlled 
progress. This thought is suggested as an antidote to the discour- 
agement and impatience we so tend to feel at the lethargy and slow 
progress of human society. 

But conservatism's only divine purpose, prejudice's only fate is 
to be conquered in the end. The conservative is one who is in 
accord with the customs and conventions of the community. He is 
one who does not really think, that is, think for himself, do his own 
thinking. He may be a very scholarly man. He may be widely 
read. He may know accurately what many other men have thought. 
But he cannot really think for himself and remain a conservative, 
remain long in agreement with all the customs of society. Thought, 
independent thought, is like yeast; it ferments, it raises things. 
Among other things it raises trouble. 

But it is when the waters are troubled that, like the Pool of 
Siloam, they have healing power. Today the waters are troubled. 
The peoples are longing, striving for change. Changes are impending, 
and change is instinctively disagreeable to most men. I wish to urge 
that we distrust the inevitable oppositions to change, as in large 
measure due to mere conservaticm, and that we endeavor in our own 
thinking to get outside of custom, to assume a detached attitude and 
to view all proposals upon their real merits without regard to the 
extent to which they run counter to the things we are accustomed to. 

We have perhaps dwelt long enough upon the matter of narrow 
thinking due to conservatism and prejudice. May we say a few words 
about shallow thinking, thinking that leaves out of account some of 
the more fundamental things, while dealing, perhaps in a scholarly 
way, with a more superficial body of data ? I might as well say right 
out that I wish to illustrate this type of thinking with the science 
of economics, which seems to me one of the conspicuous examples of 
a great body of digested and arranged data and conclusions, from 
which have usually been omitted the most fundamental data germane 
to the subject. 

Economics is sometimes defined as the science of wealth, and, 
as a matter of fact, in its development and in that development of 



industry which has been founded upon it, economics has been so 
treated. I wish to challenge the usual science of wealth as a founda- 
tion for the organization and conduct of industry. I wish to chal- 
lenge it as leaving out of account certain biological phenomena which 
are not only germane to industrial problems, but are fundamental in 
these problems. 

In the usual treatment of economics, the soundness or unsound- 
ness of any proposition is measured by its relation to the production 
or the conservation of wealth. Wealth is the standard of value, the 
measure, the criterion of final consideration. 

Against wealth as the measure of value in human society, includ- 
ing industry, I wish to place a more biological measure of value. 
I would like to state the problem in more fundamental terms. I 
would make the question before us — "What organization and con- 
duct of industry best promotes human welfare"; not stopping with 
the question of the production of wealth, but going deeper to the 
question of producing well-being. 

What, then, is human welfare? Upon what is it dependent? 
How shall it be promoted ? Increase of wealth may or may not pro- 
mote welfare. Growing complexity in social processes and organiza- 
tion may or may not produce human happiness. What is the funda- 
mental, the ultimate measure of value from man's own standpoint? 
Not wealth, not progress, but human well-being, human happiness. 
It is hard to find just the word that will cover that inner satisfac- 
tion in a man's soul, which is the finally good thing, the only thing 
that is good in itself, not good because it promotes something else. 
Everything good, in ultimate analysis, is good because it tends to 
produce in men's souls this feeling of satisfaction, of happiness. That 
is the final good from man's standpoint. 

From an outsider's viewpoint, to the being in Mars, other 
things in human life may be more interesting or more important. 
The scientific interest in human behavior or in human progress may 
be greater than the scientific interest in human happiness. But our 
discussion is from the standpoint of human welfare, human happi- 
ness, that inner satisfaction, comfort, peace, uplift, call it what you 
will, for which we have no adequate comprehensive word or phrase. 

This is a psychological, a biological phenomenon, far deeper 
than we reach in anv discussion of matters of mere wealth, and we 



must not leave our thinking of industrial problems upon the more 
superficial plane of wealth, but must constantly carry it deeper, to 
the ultimate criterion by which all questions of human good must be 
measured, the criterion of human welfare. 

Now, society is engaged in many and varied activities, but from 
our present point of view the making of men is the chief business of 
society. In the manufacture of men it is important to manufacture 
whole men, wholesome men, not cripples and defectives. It is import- 
ant to realize the complexity of man's nature, the diversity and 
breadth of his fundamental instincts, and to give fair and full play 
to all essential phases of his personality. 

It is a widely evidenced biological principle that use tends to- 
ward development and growth, and that disuse tends toward atrophy. 
No fundamental capacity of a mans nature can remain unexercised 
without consequent atrophy. To avoid making men who will be 
aborted or distorted in some phases of their nature, we must so 
organize society and its activities as to give to all men an opportunity 
to bring into play all essential phases of their nature. There are 
many fundamental qualities and capacities which should thus be 
given opportunity for exercise. Among them are :- — 

(1) The capacity and desire to exert one's powers. This is closely 
associated with pride in carrying responsibility. 

(2) The instinct of workmanship, which apparently is com- 
pounded of satisfaction in doing and in carrying responsibility, and 
of aesthetic appreciation of good product. The aesthetic sense, in 
greater or less development is evidenced, among men of all sorts and 
even in the very early remains of prehistoric human society. Satisfac- 
tion in a good job is deep-seated in human nature, whether it be the 
drawing of a mammoth on the roof of a cave, the making of a perfect 
arrow point, the building of a modern bridge, or the giving of a uni- 
versity lecture. 

(3) Love of family and the desire of social relations in general 
is a fundamental instinct. 

(4) We may mention the instinct of duty toward others, the 
realization that others' welfare is just as valuable as one's own, and 
an instinctive urge to promote the well-being of all, including one's 
self. And there are numerous other fundamental instincts. We need 
not attempt to catalog them. All are real phenomena, as real 



and as definite as man's visceral or skeletal structure. All these 
spiritual instincts must be brought into normal, wholesome play if 
we are to avoid the making of men who are atrophied in certain 
phases of their capacities and appreciations. 

Well, as to industry from this point of view. Industry is 
society's chief occupation. Government, legislation, the activity of 
courts, education, the pursuit of knowledge, the pursuit of aesthetics, 
religious activities, sports — all combined do not receive so much at- 
tention, are not given so much energy, as is expended upon industry, 
the producing of the physical bases for human life. 

Now, industrial questions have mostly been considered from the 
economic standpoint and not from the humanistic point of view. I 
believe there is need of greater relative emphasis upon certain bio- 
logical aspects of industrial problems. The purely economic view is 
inadequate, and one naturally feels that the present disturbed and 
unsatisfactory condition in the fields of production, distribution and 
consumption is due in part to a more or less wrong method of 
approach to these problems. We have lost sight, in considerable 
measure, of the fact that welfare, not wealth, is the goal. The chief 
thing we are producing is not manufactured goods, but men. The 
chief product of industry, as of all other social activities, is men, and 
it is important to scrutinize the processes and the results to be sure 
we are turning out a desirable product, that we are turning out men 
of a sort to have in themselves and to promote in others those inner 
satisfactions which are the ultimate measure of value. A lumber 
industry which produces much lumber and many Bolsheviks is appar- 
ently less desirable socially than one which produces less lumber but 
whose human product is more wholesome.* The biological, human- 
istic, point of view should receive greater relative emphasis. 

Our present industrial system is psychologically wrong, deeply 
wrong, in its influence upon the character of the men engaged in all 
phases of industry, whether in production, distribution or consump- 
tion, whether as laborers, managers or investors, and there must be 
fundamental change. The influence, the ever bearing pressure, to- 
ward a wrong psychological reaction must be so changed as to make 

(*) It is not intended to imply that improving the human pro- 
duct would actually decrease the volume of manufactured goods. 
Doubtless just the opposite is true. 

8 



the organization and conduct of industry tend in itself to draw men to 
a right spiritual response to their work and to their fellows. 

During the war we got such a response. Putting the job through 
for the sake of the country and the world was the deep purpose in 
all our thought. The perpetuation and strengthening of this same 
spirit and its introduction into all the life of the people is the real 
goal to be sought in all social life and especially in the organization 
and conduct of industry. Anything short of this does not solve our 
problem. 

In testing the soundness of any industrial idea., such as efficiency 
engineering, for example, we should not stop merely with the question 
"Will it result in a larger product of manufactured goods/' but we 
should be sure that the plan adopted is so chosen and so handled as 
to promote a well rounded life and an inner satisfaction in the work- 
er. Efficiency must be measured by its product in human lives, not 
by its product in manufactured goods. 

We have had the habit of stopping with the manufactured goods, 
with the wealth produced, and assuming that the production of 
wealth is, as a matter of course, productive of human welfare. The 
plain fact of the case is that the possession of wealth does not tend 
at all to produce happiness, soul satisfaction, in the possessor. We 
have just had a most gigantic illustration of this fact. During the 
last few years laborers have had higher wages and more wealth than 
ever before dreamed of. Laborers have bought pianos and silk under- 
wear and purchased homes and begun sending their children to col- 
lege, but perhaps there has never been a time when laborers were 
more discontented. No, the possession of money does n't bring, 
does n't tend to bring, contentment. 

This phenomenon needs a bit of analysis. What does produce 
contentment, satisfaction, happiness, in a human soul? "A man's 
life consisteth not in the abundance of the things that he hath." 
Possession does not bring peace. Then what does bring happiness? 
It comes chiefly, perhaps wholly, either from self -giving in friendship, 
or from the expenditure of energy for purposes which we know are 
worthy; and, strangely, it is the effort itself, especially if successful, 
and not the accomplished result of successful effort, that produces in 
our souls this sense of satisfaction. This isn't any preachment. It is a 



bald statement of a plain scientific fact which is proven and reproven 
both by experience and by observation. But this, one of the most 
fundamental facts of human psychology, has not been properly evalu- 
ated and has not had its deserved controlling influence upon the or- 
ganization and conduct of industry. 

But what am I driving at? What is the practical application? 
Industry is for the sake of the worker, and other workers. And of 
course, so far as we are worthy of consideration, we must all be 
workers. Parasites need not be considered. Their fate is always 
degeneration and we could not change it if we would. 

I believe that, economically and biologically, industry must be 
controlled by all the workers, if the work is to be efficient and if the 
result of the work is to be the making of worthy men, worth-while 
men. Think of the matter just a moment from the economic point 
of view and then from the humanistic, the biological, viewpoint. 

We have already noted that the major part of human energy is 
devoted to industry. The great bulk of the business of society is 
this business of getting out raw materials and manufacturing and 
distributing to the consumers the physical things upon which our 
social life is founded. How absurd, how impossible of acceptance as 
an ultimate solution of our industrial problem, is our present practise 
of turning industry over to a group of men for their private con- 
trol, giving them the privilege of making out of the job all that the 
public can be made to stand for. And the fundamental absurdity is 
just as great whether the controlling group is the capitalists alone, 
or includes also the laborers. 

A couple of winters ago, at a dinner of the Economic Society of 
Boston, I heard Matthew Wohl, of the American Federa- 
tion of Labor, speak with force and real eloquence. Among 
other things, he said, in substance — "Labor does not need 
your pity or your help. Labor can fight its own battles. All we ask 
of you is to keep your hands off. We can reach our own agreements 
with capital, satisfactory agreements. Just keep your hands off and 
we'll put the matter through to a settlement, and that too without 
continual warfare between capital and labor. We can get together. 
We'll reach a settlement, if you'll not interfere." And so on, Wohl ap- 
parently did n't have any realization that he had n't touched the 
real point. He had described a way to abolish industrial warfare, 

10 



but he had n't mentioned at all the interests of the most interested 
party, the general public. He had merely showed how capital and 
labor could get together and mulct the public. There are three 
parties in industry, those who furnish the money, those who furnish 
the labor, and those who use the manufactured product,* and the 
dominant interest everywhere and always is that of the consumer. 
Until this fact is clearly recognized and is made the basis of all our 
organization and conduct of industry, we have n't really started to 
solve our industrial problem. 

See, for a moment, the absurd situation in which private control 
of industry places us. "Over ninety per cent, of all men who engage 
in business fail at some time in their lives."f The great percentage of 
failures shows the enormous risks in industry. Therefore the re- 
wards to successful capital must be made proportionately great. 
Society pays dearly in the first place for the failures, and then she 
has to pay unreasonably for the successes. Capital cannot be led to 
take the great risks without inducements adequate to the risks. The 
present industrial system is clearly unsatisfactory. Society must 
find some way to relieve industry from these great risks, and must 
then organize the rewards upon a more reasonable basis. There are 
two fundamental changes imperatively demanded in our economic 
system : the first is public control of land and natural resources for 
the benefit of all mankind; the second is such organization of essen- 
tial industry as will allow society itself to carry at least the majoi" 
part of the risks of failure. In this way the risk of failure would be 
greatly decreased, also the cost of industry, in the form of the returns 
to the successful, would be greatly reduced, and (probably most val- 
uable of all) there would result a better balanced human community 
with less economic contrast between the extremes. It is futile to 
attempt to dodge solving this difficult problem. We must come to 
it eventually. Why not approach it now ? 

But what does this involve ? It involves ( 1 ) paying fixed re- 
turns for capital, (2) paying wages to labor, (3) having the ultimate 

(*) Management is here included with labor. 

(t) It is not meant that they go through bankruptcy, but that 
they fail to reach success in the business and reap financial loss 
rather than gain. 

11 



control of the management in the hands of the public. This in con- 
trast to the present system of turning industry over to capital to man- 
age, with carte blanche to get from the job all they can force the 
public to stand for. It means doing business, at least essential busi- 
ness, on the basis of guaranteed bonds instead of stocks with fluctu- 
ating dividends. This is a far-reaching change, one in which many 
experimental mistakes will be made, mistakes entailing heavy losses. 
No mind is keen enough to think through in advance the problems 
that will arise. In this, as in all other fields, the experimental 
method is the only method that will find the solution. Most of us 
will see the mistakes and their disastrous results and will cry out 
against the whole idea of experiment and change, desiring to return 
to the good old ways. But we won't return. The experiments will 
go on with their seven mistakes and their three successes and grad- 
ually by devious ways we will approach nearer the goal of a reason- 
able organization and conduct of society and its chief business, 
industry. 

There were, a year ago* in this country over three hundred large 
business corporations in which labor shared with capital the control 
of the business. This idea is growing. Mackenzie-King, the leader 
of the Liberal party in Canada, goes a step further. He advocates 
the control of essential industry by boards of directors, upon which 
three parties shall have equal representation — labor, capital and the 
community. f John D. Eockefeller, Jr., in this country, is converted 
to this same program. The Plumb plan for reorganization of the 
railways goes further, taking the final step of placing the ultimate 
control in the hands of the public. 

Public control of the railways, with capital in the form of guar- 
anteed bonds instead of common stock, seems practically sure to 
come, though we don't know how soon or how late it will come. Soon 
after this, will come public control of coal mines, oil wells, iron and 
other mines, and water powers. We are already approaching large 
scale public control of forests and lumber. After we have public 
control of transportation and power and some of the major natural 
resources, it is likely that public control of essential factories will 
follow. We are moving in this direction. 

(*) In the fall of 1920. 
(f ) Industry and Humanity. 

12 



As such public control comes, there will come with it the full 
sharing by labor in the election of the management of the industries, 
and such organization of the labor in the shops and mines as will 
give them an opportunity and a stimulus to put their real selves, 
their best selves, into the job, their job, theirs in reality, in a sense 
not at all true today in the average shop. How many times greater 
will then be the efficiency of labor? How much larger will be the 
product per man-hour ? 

But this greater product of material from the mines and of 
goods from the factories is not the major point. The most real 
advance will be in the self-respect of the men, in our sense of public 
service in our job, in the inner satisfaction we will reap from self- 
respecting service which we will realize is worthy of the best effort 
that is in us. The desire for self-promotion will then dictate a 
course in line with that of public service, and the very organization 
and conduct of industry will itself tend to produce and re-inforce the 
spirit of service. We, as laborers, will no longer feel, rightly or 
wrongly, that our work goes chiefly to increase the already undue 
profits of private capital, and, as capitalists, we can no longer 
scheme to mulct the public and get larger dividends. Selfishness 
will not be the skeleton and the flesh and the skin of the whole 
industrial system. Service will be the keynote, and better service 
the means by which we will win larger personal reward. 

Is this "Utopian? Are we talking of the millennium? Call it 
what you will. It is coming and it is coming more quickly than we 
might think. Things move swiftly in these days. Ten years sees as 
much progress today as a century saw in Renaissence times, or several 
centuries in the dark ages. 

And what is our part to play? It is up to us to do some clear 
thinking, some unprejudiced thinking, to see what things tend toward 
the goal, what things hinder, not to sit on the lid and confine the 
seething forces in the cauldron till they gather steam for a great and 
destructive explosion, but to co-operate wherever we can, utilize the 
power the new spirit is creating and lead it into the proper channels 
to do the work of reorganization and reconstruction through which 
is to come a saner social and industrial structure. Even with this 
spirit rather widely embodied, we may fail. In spite of all we can do, 
the explosion may come. But there are indications that co-operation 

13 



in service may succeed in heading off those who would, from sheer 
discontent, destroy with little or no thought for the fearfully difficult 
task of rebuilding. 

In closing may I ask attention to one very practical point? 
Labor has lately been of poor quality. A full, square day's work 
has n't usually been rendered for a day's wage. There is among 
laborers a spirit more general, more deep than most of us adequately 
realize, a spirit of what may be called negative sabotage, a spirit of 
giving as little work as possible for the wage received, and business 
as a whole has been managed for the sake of profits to the licensed 
"owners" rather than with a view chieffy to public service, the so- 
called owners of a business feeling free to limit it or discontinue it 
if this be to their advantage, however much such action may 
contravene the public welfare. The most pressing, the 
chief, present problem, probably the chief permanent prob- 
lem, in industry is the problem of changing this spirit of sabotage 
and replacing it by the spirit of productive service. Not producing 
materials and manufactured goods, but producing the spirit of pro- 
duction is the great industrial problem. There are many men who 
can so direct and manage willing labor as to produce materials from 
the mines and goods from the factories. That is an old-fashioned 
problem which many men by training and experience are competent 
to solve. This sort of efficient manager is not so rare. But the effic- 
iency engineer of the next decade who is of most importance will 
be the man who understands the spirit of a man and knows how to 
guide the thought and feeling of laborer and capitalist as well and 
is able to produce in those who are engaged in industry a productive 
spirit, a spirit of service in their work. The problems of chief 
interest in the near future in industry are problems of psychological 
management. Not things, not stuffs, but men are the crux of the 
industrial problem. And, as already emphasized, the only way to 
create the spirit of productive service is so to organize industry that 
all engaged in it shall share in it to the full extent of their ability. 
Not only must each man get a fair deal and receive his economically 
normal share of the product, he must carry his full share of the re- 
sponsibility, if he is to give his real self loyally to the job. 

The Orchard Laboratory 
Oberlin, Ohio. 
October, 1921. 

14 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 820 583 4 # 



